Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Stay tuned for the next episode in this series of articles when we publish documents to show how the MACC, PDRM, and AG’s Chambers ‘buried’ cases in spite of overwhelming evidence of crimes having been committed.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Poison pen letter fit for trash bin, says MACC's lawyer

The Malay Mail, 25 August 2009

POLICE investigations into the “mystery letter” that caused the Teoh Beng Hock death inquest to be adjourned last week have concluded that four out of five allegations in the letter cannot be proven.

Counsel Tan Hock Chuan, appointed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to assist in the inquest, told the hearing yesterday that allegations not proven or supported in the unsigned letter dated Aug 5, said to be from Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission officers, are:

● That MACC’s Selangor deputy director (Hishamuddin Hashim) had instructed MACC officers involved in the case to not include him;

● The MACC Selangor deputy director had his own style of questioning.

● The MACC Selangor deputy director had given his DNA swab in his own room and not in a meeting room like the other MACC officers.

● That the same deputy director had instructed his officers to wipe off fingerprint marks from a window on the 14th floor. Tan said the only part of the letter that could be proven was that the MACC Selangor deputy director had not clocked out on the morning of July 16.

“Parties can question him later when he is called up. But the coroner should take note of the CCTV video evidence, which showed him leaving the building at 6.26am on July 16.”

Tan has no plan to bring up other contents of the letter, which he said were not related to the inquest.

On allegations that the deputy director had given his DNA sample in a separate room, Tan said Dr Seah Lay Hong of the Malaysian Chemistry Department refuted it as she was present when the samples of all officers involved were taken.

Tan said fresh samples had been taken from 12 individuals, including the MACC Selangor deputy director, which was witnessed by Dr Seah — and they were exact matches with the DNA samples taken earlier.

He said the swab tests taken from the 12 people, including the MACC Selangor deputy director, did not match with that of the unknown male contributor found on Teoh.

Dr Seah in her testimony earlier said she conducted a swab test on Teoh’s belt and the DNA profile derived from the swab taken at the tear region of the belt consisted of a mixture of male DNA types belonging to Teoh, one unknown male individual and at least another unknown male contributor.

Gobind Singh Deo, who is holding the watching brief for Teoh’s family, said the explanation should come from the investigation officer, not from Tan.

“I have the right to cross-examine the investigating officer, who must give evidence on this and the inquest should not make any conclusion. Some things we can say are true. But Dr Prashant (pathologist from the University Malaya Medical Centre) had said there is evidence of disturbance at the window. This letter contains very damning information,” Gobind said.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, who is holding a watching brief for MACC, said MACC’s stand was that the mystery letter is a poison letter and it should not be entertained.

“In the past, such poison letters were put into the trash immediately,” Razak said.

Tan said the letter should not be marked as an exhibit but be kept in the court file. Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas later decided that the letter would not be marked as an exhibit.

“In due course, I think when witnesses are questioned and there is evidence to show that the letter is relevant to the case, it would then be marked. For now, it will not be marked,” Azmil said.

*************************************************

The MACC regards unsigned or anonymous letters as ‘poison pen’ letters fit for the dustbin. I was expecting them to say that and was waiting for this statement. And they have said exactly what I had thought and hoped they would say because this allows me to raise an issue that I have been harping on for more than two years since early 2007.

The issue I am talking about is the 12 Statutory Declarations that Malaysia Today published in 2007 and which, recently, we rehashed. These are not poison pen letters or surat layang. These are legal documents, sworn statements signed by 12 people, six whom are police officers. If they signed false Statutory Declarations they can be arrested and charged in court and if convicted can be sent to jail for quite a long time. False Affidavits or SDs is no small matter. It is considered a serious crime.

If the MACC is concerned with only legal documents and does not wish to layan (entertain) unsigned or anonymous letters, then why have they not looked into these 12 SDs? And, I repeat, six were signed by police officers.

Instead of looking into what these six police officers said in their signed SDs, the police are taking disciplinary action against them. Some have been arrested and charge for ‘abuse of power’. The government views these SDs as an abuse of power. What crap!

How do you expect the MACC officers to put their names to that ‘anonymous’ letter when those who did put their names, not only to a letter but to a Statutory Declaration, got into trouble. SDs are more than just letters. SDs are stronger. And they put their names to the SDs. And now they are in trouble.

Okay, the MACC does not want to layan anonymous letters. Never mind. Let us then publish some signed documents. These are not unsigned. These are not anonymous. These are signed declarations. These are exchanges of letters between government officers, Ministers included. Let us see what the MACC does about these. What excuses are they going to now offer for doing nothing?

Stay tuned for the next episode in this series of articles when we will publish documents to show how the MACC, PDRM, and AG’s Chambers ‘buried’ cases in spite of overwhelming evidence of crimes having been committed.

The MACC (PDRM and AG as well) is full of shit. And we are going to prove it.